Yes, medical research articles usually include a literature review in the introduction; dedicated review papers make prior research the entire focus.
Readers bump into this question for two reasons. First, you want to judge whether a study sits on solid ground. Second, you may need to write or appraise that section yourself. Here’s the short path: almost every scholarly paper in medicine anchors its argument to earlier studies, either in a tight “Background/Introduction” or in a full review article where the summary of prior work is the main product.
How Journals Shape The Paper
Most health-science journals follow the IMRaD pattern: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Inside that first section, authors set the clinical or scientific context and cite a compact set of studies that lead straight to the research question. The goal is not a full textbook roundup; it’s a brief, targeted map that justifies why the study matters and how it differs from what’s been published.
| Article Type | Where Prior Studies Appear | Depth Of Review |
|---|---|---|
| Original Research (trial, cohort, lab) | Intro/Background | Concise: only what frames the question |
| Systematic Review/Meta-analysis | Entire article | Comprehensive and method-driven |
| Scoping Review | Entire article | Broad map of the field |
| Clinical Practice Guideline | Intro + evidence summary | Selective synthesis tied to recommendations |
| Case Report/Series | Intro | Short context with a few comparators |
| Protocols | Intro/Rationale | Focused justification for planned methods |
Do Clinical Journal Papers Include A Background Review?
Yes—nearly always. In primary studies, the Background frames the gap that the Methods will tackle. In articles built for synthesis, the entire manuscript is the review. That split explains why readers sometimes think papers “lack a review”: they may be reading an experimental study where the review is lean by design.
Original Studies: Brief And Targeted
Randomized trials, observational cohorts, and basic-science reports all start with a compact tour of prior findings. Editors expect a line of logic: what is known, what is missing, and the specific question or hypothesis. Load that section with only the most relevant and recent citations, then move to Methods without detours.
Systematic Reviews And Meta-Analyses
These papers are themselves a literature review. They follow a protocol, pre-set inclusion criteria, and a reproducible search. The payoff is a structured answer, often with pooled effect sizes. Because methods are transparent, readers can assess bias and completeness.
Scoping Reviews And Evidence Maps
When a field is new or scattered, authors may chart the range of study designs, topics, and outcomes without pooling effects. The result is a map of what exists and what’s missing.
Case Reports And Case Series
Here the review is short by intent. That intro shows why the patient story matters and how it compares with similar cases.
Trial, Cohort, And Diagnostic Reporting Standards
Major reporting checklists expect a compact Background that points cleanly to the research aim. They also make methods auditable and results transparent, which helps readers judge whether the cited context matches the data that follow.
What The Guidelines Say (And Why It Helps You)
International editorial guidance states that the text of original studies is typically organized as Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. Under this model, the Introduction provides context and a brief review that leads to the aim or hypothesis. Reporting networks for trials, observational studies, and syntheses echo that structure with checklists that keep the context tight and the methods verifiable.
For full-scale review articles, authors use a protocol and a predefined search strategy with clear eligibility rules. PRISMA, the standard for systematic reviews, supplies the checklists and flow diagrams that show how studies were found and selected. Readers can trace each step, from database search to final synthesis.
Want sources? See the ICMJE manuscript structure and the PRISMA 2020 statement; both are widely used by journals that index in PubMed and Web of Science.
How Deep Should The Background Go?
Depth depends on what the article is trying to do.
When The Paper Tests A Hypothesis
Keep the Background tight. Pick the handful of trials, population studies, or mechanistic papers that set up the question. Aim for recency, landmark studies, and direct relevance. Avoid grab-bag summaries.
When The Paper Synthesizes Evidence
Depth is the point. Define databases, time windows, language limits, inclusion rules, and outcomes. Show the screening numbers with a flow diagram. Describe study quality checks and how you handled heterogeneity.
How To Spot The Review Section Fast
Skim the first 3–6 paragraphs. You’ll see topic context, a short string of citations, and a final sentence that states the study aim. In reviews, the scope statement and eligibility rules arrive near the start, followed by Methods for searching and screening.
| Section | What You’ll See | Why It’s There |
|---|---|---|
| Introduction/Background | Context + gap + aim | Shows why the study was done |
| Methods (in reviews) | Databases, terms, criteria | Makes the search reproducible |
| Discussion | Findings vs prior work | Places results in the field |
Writing A Strong Background: A Simple Playbook
1) Define The Claim
State the problem and the exact gap. If you can’t phrase the gap as a single sentence, the section will sprawl.
2) Pull The Right Sources
Start with recent trials or large cohorts, then landmark mechanistic papers. Use study designs that match your claim. If your outcome is clinical, lead with clinical evidence.
3) Sift With Intent
Group citations by idea, not by author. Two to three sentences per idea is plenty. Each sentence should move the logic forward.
4) Land On The Aim
End with one clear aim or hypothesis. Avoid mini-reviews of side topics.
5) Keep The Tone Neutral
Summarize strengths and limits without hype. Cite both positive and negative findings where they matter.
Reading Tip: Match The Depth To The Article Type
Don’t expect the same level of sweep from every paper. A single-center RCT will not have a dozen paragraphs of context. A meta-analysis will. Readers who tune their expectations by article type finish faster and retain more.
Common Pitfalls That Weaken The Background
Over-citing Peripheral Work
This buries the gap and irritates reviewers. Use only what advances the argument.
Out-of-date Citations
Anchor to the latest high-quality studies, then add foundational classics if they’re still relevant.
Claims Without Evidence
If a statement shapes your aim, tie it to a study. If the study is low quality, say so and move on.
Quick Comparison Of Article Types
This snapshot helps students and busy clinicians decide how much review to expect when they open a paper.
| Type | Main Aim | Review Depth |
|---|---|---|
| Randomized Trial | Test an intervention | Short, targeted |
| Observational Study | Describe associations | Short to moderate |
| Systematic Review | Synthesize prior studies | Full, methods-driven |
| Scoping Review | Map what exists | Broad, non-pooled |
| Case Report | Share a clinical insight | Brief |
| Protocol | Lay out a planned study | Focused rationale |
Where To Learn The Standards
Editorial bodies and reporting networks publish guidance on how to structure medical papers and how to report reviews. The ICMJE page explains IMRaD and other manuscript elements. PRISMA sets out what to report in a systematic review, including search strategies and flow diagrams. Trial, cohort, and case report checklists round out the picture.
What Peer Reviewers Usually Look For
Editors and reviewers want a Background that is tight, current, and pointed at a clear aim. They scan for a logical bridge from prior work to the study question, balanced citation of competing findings, and a plain statement of how this paper changes what readers should think or do.
Balance And Proportionality
If the Methods are modest, the context should not read like a mini encyclopedia. Flip that when scope is broad: a synthesis paper needs a full description of how the search was done and why certain designs were included.
Recency And Relevance
Expect pushback when older papers crowd out recent trials, registries, or large databases that speak directly to the outcome. A tight Background steers citations toward the designs that answer the question at hand.
Practical Skimming Tips For Busy Clinicians
Open the abstract and look for a Background/Introduction label. Then jump to the end of the first section on the full text and read the final one or two sentences. Those lines usually spell out the aim in plain words. Next, scan the first paragraph of the Discussion to see how the authors relate their findings to the prior studies they cited earlier.
Spot Signals Of A Good Review Section
Clear aim, recent and relevant citations, and a short chain of logic are strong signs. Overlong historical detours or a reference list packed with local or low-impact sources are weak signs.
Ethical Writing: Keep Citations Honest
Citation padding adds noise and can mislead readers. Do not cite reviews in place of original trials when the claim hinges on effect sizes. Credit data producers whenever possible. When the only available data are small or indirect, say so in plain words.
Sample Lines That Close A Background Section
Writers often end the Background with one tight line. Here are patterns you can adapt:
Gap Statement
“Prior studies measured short-term outcomes under lab conditions; whether the effect holds in real-world care is unknown. We ran a multicenter trial to test that.”
Conflict Statement
“Observational results point one way, small trials point the other. We designed a larger randomized study to resolve the difference.”
Scope Statement For A Review
“We conducted a registered review to map treatments for condition X in adults, including efficacy, harms, and patient-reported outcomes.”
Study-Type Quick Guides You Can Trust
Trial reports, observational studies, systematic reviews, and case reports each have tailored checklists. These tools improve clarity and make peer review faster because authors follow a shared template.
Why IMRaD Still Works
The format mirrors how science is done: set the context, describe the plan, report what happened, and relate the findings to prior work. Readers learn where to find each piece, which speeds up appraisal and teaching.
When A Paper Seems To Lack A Review
Two scenarios are common. The first is a tight experimental report where the Background deliberately stays short to avoid repeating well-known facts. The second is a short communication or brief report with strict word limits. In both cases, you will still see a small set of citations that point to the gap and the aim.
Final Takeaway
Use this rule: context lives in the Background for primary studies and carries the whole article in review papers. Once you know which type you’re reading, you can predict how deep the review will go, where it sits, and how to judge its quality.